[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi everyone,

here was the answer I got from our friend Ioseb hopefully my translation works out ok:

------transcript starts here -----------

Southstar said: Well how do you determine the amount of information? what process do you use?

Ioseb said: Well I use the unit of measure on the base of the nucliotide molecule (DNA or RNA), expressed in thousands of bases (kb)

By measuring the modifications taken place in the genomic sequence of the Malaria or HIV plasmoid through the years it is possible to quantify, how much has changed in terms of complexity, what has been gained and what has determined no change.

As I explained: a sequence A; let's say produces a protein B following 3 molecular processes which are at the base of life. (in extremely simple terms replication, transcription and translation) all that needs to be done is to verify how much this sequence has changed after the mutation so as to measure at least the quantity of nucleotides that diffirentiate it.

Please note that the modification of a nucleotide is an extremely rare event, 2 nucleotides are immensly rare, 3 are astronomicaly rare, 4 are next to impossible.

Seeing as that the smallest and most simple proteins are composed of 10's of aminoacids,("translated" from the comparison of the triplet codon / anticodon) for example myoglobine has 153, which is about 459 nucliotide bases.

So we're talking about 1 or 2 nucleotide changes on 459, and in most cases the changes don't even cause a variation in the translated aminoacid (every aminoacid can be translated by more codons, therefore by more necleotide sequences).

See these are the measures I'm refering to with regards to the mutations, or at least the most probable one's that can arrise which lead to the adding of information under the form of new codifing sequences: I don't really cionsider the other mutations as they are deleterious, they have a wider applicability on the sequences and therefore the probability of adding codifing information is reduced.

In simple terms, one thing is to change a letter in one chapter of a book at random, and another is to change whole sentences or words.

Southstar said: Well even if your nucleotide is smaller, how did you go about determening a loss of information?

Isobe said: Well simple, just by the fact that the nucleotide sequence is no longer able to codify the same protiens, which then seize to function or at least function less.

Southstar said: Yes and in terms of evolution this is no problem we have a lot of species out there that have lost functions. See evolution dosen't have to have a direction.

Ioseb said: Well yes but it's still proof of a loss of information. Besides the point is that there is no way that you could go from bacteria to human by just changing randomly one or two nucleotides and even then you need to have these passed down to the following generation which is even rarer.

See your silly evolution rests on mutations which don't occur and natural selction which is essentially passive. Selection will never and can never add information, it could favour and organism on the basis of fisical circumstances, but in small it's totaly random and blind.

Southstar said: Still you have shown a loss of ability sooo what? Hamsters have lost their tails, dolphins went back to the sea and?

Isoeb said: Don't be stupid! You don't have the faintest idea of what it would take to do the kind of mutations that you have just mentioned. Your not a scientist like me. You're just a silly girl. What do you know about molecular biology?

Ah and by the way those silly studies that you posted regarding macroevolution well that was all microevolution. You know you don't have any proof of macroevolution so don't try pawning micro studies. Remember what carl sagan said: Great claims require great proof. You don't have any.

Southstar said: goodness Carl is shaking in his tomb and could visit you tonight. I'd watch my back.

---- end of transcript ----

To me it seems he's avoiding the difficult questions with technobable. But I would need some valid arguments to take him down. If I just reply that it's rubbish the fence sitting people will say "why do you say that"? So I need to show that it's rubbish.

CheersMarty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Just refer them to the Evolution on a Chip article. The end result was a 90-fold increase in efficiency and there were 4 mutations (some of which were multiple nucleotides) that resulted in this.

So, not only can it happen, it DOES happen and in a controlled environment in which no designer was found fiddling with the RNA sequence.

You can also refer them to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover ISD court transcript in which Michael Behe is toasted on the same subject.

In short, let's say that there is a 1 in trillion trillion chance for the mutations to occur. Unfortunately, the creationists forget that there is a trillion bacteria in a few grams of soil (for example) and there are many trillions of grams of soil in the world.

So, even a trillion trillion chance approaches 1 when one is discussing all life on the planet.

Sure, it's more difficult to deal with something like this in large animals and plants, but then (as the creationists remind us) large animal and plant populations change very slowly.

Your friend Ioseb may claim to be a scientist, but he(?) doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about. He mentions "Malaria or HIV plasmoid." No such things. Malaria is the disease caused by a parasite called Plasmodium. HIV is a virus. Neither one is a plasmid, which is a form of self-replicating DNA.

He says Sequence A produces Protein B through replication, transcription, and translation. Wrong! Replication is not involved in going from DNA sequence to protein. Replication of Sequence A just gives you more copies of Sequence A.

As for this:

Quote

Please note that the modification of a nucleotide is an extremely rare event, 2 nucleotides are immensly rare, 3 are astronomicaly rare, 4 are next to impossible.

Plus he's still dodging your question of how to quantitatively measure information in a DNA sequence. He says it's based on the number of kilobase pairs and the number of mutations, but that's hand waving. Which has more information, in his opinion - sequence 1: AAAAAAAAAAAA, or sequence 2: ATGACCGACTAG? They're the same length, so do they have equal information? What if the first base of each is mutated to a C. How much has the information in each sequence changed? Just one A-to-C mutation in each, so it must be the same amount, right?

And at this point the lay audience switches off and goes away happy that "their" guy appears to be having a scientific argument and therefore there must be something in it or some controversy.

Which is exactly what the Creationists/IDers count on. Except they've also got a sophisticated (well) racket going on where they ask you to "buy their book" where the secret is fully revealed.

If, when asked, they cannot give a specific numerical value of "information" present in a given thing, despite claiming that they can, then how can they possibly claim that information has gone up or down at all? If they can't measure it how do they know it exists at all, never mind has it increased or decreased!

When pressed on this they typically say at UD: "It's so much it's obvious, it does not actually need to be measured".

KF for example claims there are billions of examples of FSCI out there on the internet, in the form of intelligible messages (I hope he's not counting his own in that...), but can't quite bring himself to do the calculation when asked, referring people to "Abel" et al. It can be done, according to him, but not by him.

Some organisms are fully sequenced. Which one has more information then another? Less? What's the actual figure for FSCI (or whatever units they are measuring it in, ask them that too) for the organism? Can they show that calculation?

Then, if they answer that, they can meet Mr Onion.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi everyone,

here was the answer I got from our friend Ioseb hopefully my translation works out ok:

------transcript starts here -----------

Southstar said: Well how do you determine the amount of information? what process do you use?

Ioseb said: Well I use the unit of measure on the base of the nucliotide molecule (DNA or RNA), expressed in thousands of bases (kb)

If your boy Ioseb really does measure 'information' by counting the nucleotides, he's already lost -- because by the number-of-nucleotides method for measuring information, any mutation which inserts extra nucleotides into a genetic sequence increases the information of that DNA! You should point this out. The lurkers will appreciate it.

Quote

By measuring the modifications taken place in the genomic sequence of the Malaria or HIV plasmoid through the years it is possible to quantify, how much has changed in terms of complexity, what has been gained and what has determined no change.

This is bafflegab. It is most certainly not a clear answer to the question of "how do you measure information?"; at best, it's a vague assertion about a perhaps-hypothetical method which possibly could measure information. Give Ioseb a pair of nucleotide sequences, one of which is a minor modification of the other. Ask him which of the two sequences has more information in it -- and insist that he show his work. He won't be able to, so make his failure utterly crystal-clear in the minds of all readers. †No matter how impressive his sciencey-sounding verbiage is, his inability to actually determine how much information is in a nucleotide sequence will go a long way towards convincing people that Ioseb is full of shit.

Quote

As I explained: a sequence A; let's say produces a protein B following 3 molecular processes which are at the base of life. (in extremely simple terms replication, transcription and translation) all that needs to be done is to verify how much this sequence has changed after the mutation so as to measure at least the quantity of nucleotides that diffirentiate it.

The phrase "at least" suggests that there's more to his information-measuring method than just counting nucleotides. Ask what else is needed, besides just the number of nucleotides.

It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.

It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.

Yes I believe he is heading that way, by showing that all mutations create negative information. He pointed out the following paper as important to his argument:http://www.lehigh.edu/bio....per.pdf

It's our well known friend Behe, but it's peer reviewed. Still reading through it I don't see anything that could be a visioned as anti-evolution. He does seem to lean towards evolution only subtracts though.

And I believe that his argument will be: see on a molecular level all that can happen is negative - loss of function / information. Therefore there is no way that you could have increased complexity through evolution. So your only option is things were "created" complex or through "divine" genetic intervention.

Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.

Yes I believe he is heading that way, by showing that all mutations create negative information.

Okay, fine -- give your 'friend' the two-sequence test. Provide pairs of nucleotide sequences; ask which sequence in each pair has the most information; insist that he show his work; and do not allow him to weasel out of either (a) providing answers to your "which sequence has more information?" questions, or (b) explaining how he came up with his answers.

One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

Yes I often remind them that the absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Unfortunately for them they always have to agree to this cause all of there idea stands on this principle.

marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

[evil grin] And if your Creationist buddies are insistent that "no answers = reason to reject", ask them some of the many, many questions which no IDiot has ever yet answered...What did the Intelligent Designer do?When did the Intelligent Designer do it?What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?Etc, etc...

One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

[evil grin] And if your Creationist buddies are insistent that "no answers = reason to reject", ask them some of the many, many questions which no IDiot has ever yet answered...What did the Intelligent Designer do?When did the Intelligent Designer do it?What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?Etc, etc...

Oh come'on such easy questions to answer? ;)

What did the Intelligent Designer do?

Answer: look around

When did the Intelligent Designer do it?

1st Answer: It doesn't really matter... 2nd Answer: some (unspecified) records indicate it's around 6000 years ago.3nd answer: The designer has never stopped doing whatever you think he might have done.

What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?

Answer: It doesn't really say how he did it besides it's not really our business to know.

What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?

Answer: That's not the question, the question we should ask is: (and then they ask another totally different question which they can answer!) - itallian polititians also use this way out often :D

Cheers Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

[evil grin] And if your Creationist buddies are insistent that "no answers = reason to reject", ask them some of the many, many questions which no IDiot has ever yet answered...What did the Intelligent Designer do?When did the Intelligent Designer do it?What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?Etc, etc...

Oh come'on such easy questions to answer? ;)

What did the Intelligent Designer do?

Answer: look around

My suggested response to this non-answer: Unless you're saying that the Intelligent Designer did absolutely everything, 'look around' isn't an answer. Are you saying the Intelligent Designer did ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING?If they reply "Yep, I sure am saying that," you can follow up by reminding that that "absolutely everything" includes ebola, brown recluse spiders, etc etc etc, so they're saying the Intelligent Designer designed ebola. And It designed the bubonic plague. Ask them why the Intelligent Designer designed all this nasty stuff to kill humans. A reply of "no, the Designer didn't do that" indicates that they were lying when they claimed the Designer did everything, so hammer on them for their dishonesty.If they reply "Uh, no, I'm not saying the Designer designed everything," follow up by pointing out that if the Intelligent Designer didn't do EVERYTHING, there must necessarily be some things It didn't do... so what things weren't designed by the Designer? Insist on specifics, and don't let anybody forget that the guys who are doing their damnedest to avoid answering this question, are the same people who had been yammering about how unanswered questions are a good reason to reject a scientific theory.

Quote

When did the Intelligent Designer do it?

1st Answer: It doesn't really matter...

Suggested reply: Hammer on them for their blatant hypocrasy. "Hold it. You were just making noise about how unanswered questions are a good reason to reject a theory! How come you're saying 'I don't care' here, and not 'Gosh, I don't have an answer, so that means I should give up on ID' ?"

Insist on them saying exactly which 'documents' those are. If it's the Bible, make it very clear to everybody that this is all well and good as a religious belief, and ask them if they have any science to support what they're saying. You don't need to sneer at religion, but do make it very clear that Religion Ain't Science, and if they're rejecting a scientific theory for religious reasons, they shouldn't claim they're rejecting it on scientific grounds, because that's a big, fat, hairy LIE. If they can't actually identify any of these 'documents' they mentioned, hammer on their hypocrasy -- what, unanswered questions only cast doubt on a scientific theory when it's a theory they don't happen to agree with? yeah, right, sure, you bet...

Quote

3nd answer: The designer has never stopped doing whatever you think he might have done.

Remind them that they don't have a good answer about what the Designer did. Ask them how the hell they know that the Designer is still at work, if they don't have a clue about what work that might have been.

Quote

What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?

Answer: It doesn't really say how he did it besides it's not really our business to know.

My suggested response to this: "Okay, so you don't really think unanswered questions are a good reason to doubt a scientific theory." Hammer on their hypocracy, yada yada yada.

Quote

What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?

Answer: That's not the question, the question we should ask is: (and then they ask another totally different question which they can answer!) - itallian polititians also use this way out often :D

Don't let them get away with changing the subject. "Yes, [verbiage they disgorged about irrelevant question] is all well and good, but it doesn't have anything to do with the question I asked. What did the Designer design?" Just keep at it, and make it very clear that anybody who thinks unanswered questions are a good reason to doubt a scientific theory, is the last person who should be making noise about "oh, that isn't the question".

tl:dr summary: Hammer on your Creationist buddies for their hypocrisy. Throw a harsh spotlight on all the bits of their position which would require them to reject that position, if they actually were serious about "unanswered questions are a good reason to doubt a scientific theory", and point out (for the lurkers) that the game your Creationist buddies are playing is called "heads I win, tails you lose" .

The whole thrust of the argument on EN+V is that X could not have done Y therefore Z must have done it instead.

Quote

However, there is another possibility, namely the scientific inclusion of intelligent design. In contrast to neo-Darwinism, LŲnnig notes the ID-based view can "be falsified by proving (among other points) that the probability to form an ICS by purely natural processes is high, that specified complexity is low, and finally, by generating an ICS by random mutations in a species displaying none."

Sure, ID is a possibility. So are invisible Unicorns from Mars.

The point is that the ID based view does not need to be falsified as it is not supported to start with in the first place.

All we have is a gap "How did X form - we don't know" and ID does not get to fill that gap without some positive evidence of it's own. Which it does not have.

So all that paper points to is a gap in our understanding of a particular process and if that's evidence for ID then it can be said that every day the "evidence" for ID is getting smaller and smaller as we find new things out.

And every time we've found such an answer ID is never involved. Ever. So what are the chances that it'll be involved this particular time?

It's just ID of the gaps, nothing new here.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

If the trait evolved multiple times independently, then why do so many plants still lack such a "lantern" protective shelter?

Ah, yes. The old 'if evolution is true, how come humans haven't evolved wings' ruse. Just because a trait evolves and is selected for in some species doesn't mean it should be selected for in every species.

Quote

After noting that some proponents of neo-Darwinism make unfalsifiable appeals to unknown selective advantages, [Lonnig] concludes that neo-Darwinism is not making falsifiable predictions and finds that this "infinity of mostly non-testable explanations (often just-so-stories) itself may put the theory outside science."

So if a "Darwinist" appeals to unknown selective advantages, he's guilty of making unfalsifiable predictions and being unscientific. But it's totally fine for an IDist to appeal to an unknown designer, right? At least the Darwinist is appealing to a mechanism that's proven to exist.

If the trait evolved multiple times independently, then why do so many plants still lack such a "lantern" protective shelter?

Ah, yes. The old 'if evolution is true, how come humans haven't evolved wings' ruse. Just because a trait evolves and is selected for in some species doesn't mean it should be selected for in every species.

†

Quote

After noting that some proponents of neo-Darwinism make unfalsifiable appeals to unknown selective advantages, [Lonnig] concludes that neo-Darwinism is not making falsifiable predictions and finds that this "infinity of mostly non-testable explanations (often just-so-stories) itself may put the theory outside science."

So if a "Darwinist" appeals to unknown selective advantages, he's guilty of making unfalsifiable predictions and being unscientific. But it's totally fine for an IDist to appeal to an unknown designer, right? At least the Darwinist is appealing to a mechanism that's proven to exist.

Intelligence is proven to exist, too, and to produce functional structures.

It's just that God's intelligence is very different, so you'd expect his designs to be very different as well.

So the analogy holds. †I mean, except for God's intelligence being so unlike any we've ever seen, and the functional structures being a great deal different from anything we've produced.

It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.

Hello,

Finaly I forced Ioseb to give me some more information on what he considers as information and how he plans to measure it here is the transcript:

----------transcript starts here-------------

Southstar: You measured what? As I have shown by the nucleotide sequences above you were not able to tell which had more information... case closed. Until you do so you're really going to need another argument.

Ioseb: Sorry you didn't prove anything with your little game. I have already told you that we are not interested in measuring the information. The real question is whether information exists and if this information is specified and complex.

You've just run out of critisims haven't you that's why you keep asking for measurement.

Anyway here's how it's done let me explain it to you since you and your friends are stupid beyond belief. We look at the position of the nucleotied and/or the aminoacid within biological molecules these have always a precise physical, chemical and structural significance. These represent specific information, all that needs to be done is to count the nucleotides and the aminoacids in the sequence so as to determine the intrinsic complexity.

This is the measure of information I'm talking about.

For example the section of a ribosome of 1600 amminoacids and a nucleotide is obviously more complicated than a Myglobin of 153 aminoacids

But between the two molecules of 150 aminoacids i'm in no way interested in determening which has more information. But rather what information they hold. You know Information is commonly used in biology.

Let's take three sequences the first two are your invented sequences. The third is a real sequence. (See scientists use real things not like the ones you make up).

Sequenza 1:AAAAAAAAAAAASequenza 2:ATGACCGACTAGSequenza 3:AUGGUUAAGGGA

See now sequence 3 has the same probability of being genereated by chance as the other two, but it is a real RNA sequence starting with a codon (AUG) and the codons for translating amminoacids valinm lisin and glicin.

So if we make the assumption that this sequence codifies in the begining a protiene, it would not contain only information of the random sequence of letters but it would also contain information (contained in the example in the first triplet regarding) reagarding the amminoacid start, the same for each triplet which together contains a specific information which can be chemical/physical or structural. This is INDESPENSIBLE for the function of the protiens produced.

Now my sequence is the only one of the three that permit the formation of a protiene,

if you change it from

AUGGUUAAGGGA

to

AGGGUUAAGGGA

all that simply happens is that the robosome will not recognise the RNA and won't even start the translation process.

So what do we have protien non produced = loss of function = problems or death of the organism

Now do you understand the information I'm talking about.

Just in case you don't understand for your thick little brain here is a simple example

sequence1: get me some cheeseSequence2: eef hg thki loffr

See they both have the same amount of Shannon information but sequence 1 has extra information encoded it tells you more.

So now I've proven to everyone that information exists and it can be seen. You wouldn't get up to get the cheese with the second sequence would you.

Southstar Said: Well listen in the end of the game even if you are right you have just proved a loss of function sooo what this in no way disproves evolution. look here, here is a study that just goes to show gain of function http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0060085 - Biology on a chip.

Ioseb said: Thanks i rest my case! You brought a study which proves that without inteligence nothing happens. I'll be using this little jewel that you supplied to me many more times. But first I tell your decendent from monkey friends why:Now let's see evolution requires processes that are by chance and that there is no divine intervention and what do you bring here. A study that proves that you can't get there unless you skew the chances and you interviene through intelligence. Wow The scientists in this study have created a controlled enviorment , and skewed the program so as to give them the resault they wanted. THE PRESTIGE! This people is what the fake science is pawning you. Because they were not able to find proof in nature they fabricated it. just like the whole theory, it depends on pure fabrications.

Go home to your monkey friends and tell them thanks for further proof AGAINST evolution. If they wound stop playing videogames they might understand that nature is designed by God.

Southstar said: Okay so in the ndo you just proved a loss of function sooo what? Evolution doesn't have a direction. A lot of animals have lost functions so?

Ioseb said: well see you evolutionists suggest that we have passed form simple organisms to complex organisms. Read your silly theory. From bacteria to humans. So according to the theory we have moved from less complex organisms to more complex organisms. In accordance with this there must have been a increase in biological information humans have many more functions than bacteria. So we had to have new functions that had to develop naturally (not in your stupid PS2 game), new functions would have led to new organs and new life forms.

Please show me a peer reviewed paper that shows increase function has lead to anything... Actually show me a peered reviewed paper that shows that functions can increase

See I have presented a peer reviewed study by an eminent scientist that proves that loss of function is almost the law. You have shown nothing!

To the readers of this forum: I think that we can rest assured that science, the real science has and will triumph over this blinded and evil idea.

--------- transcript ends here----------

I think it is obvious that he is now mixing up meaning with information. He would chose the churchil speech and say: That what counts is that it gives you extra information it makes you do something. Now he's not interested in counting the duration of the speech he's counting the extra quality what it makes you do.

Any idea on how to break this down?

CheersMarty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Intelligence is proven to exist, too, and to produce functional structures.

It's just that God's intelligence is very different, so you'd expect his designs to be very different as well.

So the analogy holds. †I mean, except for God's intelligence being so unlike any we've ever seen, and the functional structures being a great deal different from anything we've produced.

Glen Davidson

Intelligence is proven to exist, but an intelligent designer is not. Plus, which is worse - a scientist appealing to unknown selective advantages? Or an IDist appealing to the unknown/unknowable motives of an unknown/unknowable/undemonstrated designer?

Ioseb: Anyway here's how it's done let me explain it to you since you and your friends are stupid beyond belief. We look at the position of the nucleotied and/or the aminoacid within biological molecules these have always a precise physical, chemical and structural significance. These represent specific information, all that needs to be done is to count the nucleotides and the aminoacids in the sequence so as to determine the intrinsic complexity.

This is the measure of information I'm talking about.

Wrong. The vast majority of proteins include amino acids that are completely superfluous to their structure and function. They can be replaced with other amino acids or even deleted with no effect. So no, you can't just count amino acids, because number of amino acids doesn't directly correspond to function, complexity, information, meaning, or anything else he's suggesting.

Let's take three sequences the first two are your invented sequences. The third is a real sequence. (See scientists use real things not like the ones you make up).

Sequenza 1:AAAAAAAAAAAASequenza 2:ATGACCGACTAGSequenza 3:AUGGUUAAGGGA

See now sequence 3 has the same probability of being genereated by chance as the other two, but it is a real RNA sequence starting with a codon (AUG) and the codons for translating amminoacids valinm lisin and glicin.

So if we make the assumption that this sequence codifies in the begining a protiene, it would not contain only information of the random sequence of letters but it would also contain information (contained in the example in the first triplet regarding) reagarding the amminoacid start, the same for each triplet which together contains a specific information which can be chemical/physical or structural. This is INDESPENSIBLE for the function of the protiens produced. †

Now my sequence is the only one of the three that permit the formation of a protiene

Really? I guess Ioseb didn't notice that Sequence 2 is simply the DNA version of the following:

AUGACCGACUAG

Note that it also contains the AUG start codon (which codes for methionine), followed by codons for threonine (ACC) and aspartate (GAC). Even better, Sequence 2 includes a stop codon (UAG), with is also INDISPENSIBLE for function.

†

Quote

Now do you understand the information I'm talking about.

I understand it a lot better than Ioseb does. That's clear.

†

Quote

So now I've proven to everyone that information exists and it can be seen.

Congratulations to Ioseb for "proving" what no one was disputing. We all agree that information exists. We even agree that it can be measured, as long as you're careful about precisely defining the kind of information you're measuring.

The issue is not whether information exists. The issue is Ioseb's (and others') claim that information can't be increased by evolution. To wit:

†

Quote

Ioseb said: well see you evolutionists suggest that we have passed form simple organisms to complex organisms. Read your silly theory. From bacteria to humans. So according to the theory we have moved from less complex organisms to more complex organisms. In accordance with this there must have been a increase in biological information humans have many more functions than bacteria. So we had to have new functions that had to develop naturally (not in your stupid PS2 game), new functions would have led to new organs and new life forms. †

Please show me a peer reviewed paper that shows increase function has lead to anything... Actually show me a peered reviewed paper that shows that functions can increase

Of course, Ioseb may object that demonstrating evolution of such a relatively simple new function is a long way from demonstrating that fins can evolve into legs and wings. And it's true that we don't (yet) understand the details of how that could happen. But we haven't yet had the luxury of running controlled evolutionary experiments over the course of several million years. What we have done is proven that evolution really happens on observable scales, and that it's consistent with the reams of data from molecular phylogenies & the fossil & geological record going back billions of years.

What has Ioseb shown? Can he provide any shred of positive evidence for a designer (or whatever else he thinks accounts for biological complexity)?

Quote

To the readers of this forum: I think that we can rest assured that science, the real science has and will triumph over this blinded and evil idea.

And here we see a clue to Ioseb's real objection to evolution: it's "evil." And what makes it evil? Could it be because it contradicts Ioseb's religious beliefs? Naaah.

P.S. What's your interest in trying to "break this down?" If you're just trying to understand how Ioseb's arguments are flawed, or you're trying to convince others how he's wrong, fair enough. But if you're hoping to convince Ioseb that he's wrong, forget it. It's not gonna happen.

Just in case you don't understand for your thick little brain here is a simple example

sequence1: get me some cheeseSequence2: eef hg thki loffr

See they both have the same amount of Shannon information but sequence 1 has extra information encoded it tells you more.

Of course we have only Ioseb's word for it that "eef hg thki loffr" doesn't mean something in some obscure language. †

Sequence3: zhw n wjs rh rny Sequence4: jmz nj nhy n snw

One of these is "bring me some wine" in ancient Egyptian (there's apparently no attested word for "cheese"). †The other doesn't mean anything I know of; it's just a string of letters and spaces. †Which one has more information?

One thing I don't get is why somebody would claim that proving sufficiency of natural processes would somehow disprove "some intelligent thing did it".

The hypothesis that something intelligent did something does not logically imply that natural processes couldn't do something equivalent; claiming otherwise is saying that an intelligence couldn't make use of natural processes even if it wanted to (which is something humans do all the time).

You could show him a fractal and ask him if that is a lot of information or a little bit of information. † If he says 'a lot' then he's an idiot (well, beyond what we already knew).

If you're talking about the information needed to generate it, that would be a little. But what if you're talking about a list of the coordinates of the pixels to display it? ;)

Henry

Do you REALLY want to get into arguments about Shannon verus Kolmogrov?

If so, I recommend reading Shallit and Elsberry, "Playing Games with Probability: Dembski's Complex Specified Information." 2005 "Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism" Rutgers University Press

Use the paperback

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."